Tortorella post-practice

Some good stuff from John Tortorella after practice today, including his picks for this weekend’s NFL games, his reaction to Jim Dolan’s visit in the coach’s press conference last night, some comments for a story I’m doing on Ryan Callahan, and about Carl Hagelin and what he’s done and what he needs to continue to do.

238 Comments

No, I’m not taking that seriously. What I’m doing is pointing out how one metric does not measure a hockey player’s worth.

I just started thinking of a few random players that I know are near the top of the career goalscoring list. You know some of the players who aren’t in the top 250 of career shooting percentage? Mike Gartner, Joe Sakic, Marcel Dionne. None of them are above 14% shooting for their careers. Tell me that you don’t think they are good players.

Your shooting percentage metric is one of the most foolish things I’ve ever heard. And the fact that you thought 20% was something that a lot of great players can achieve shows how little you know about it.

Well, I wish this “coach” would care a little bit about PP shooting percentage, because lately it’s been down to Zero, whatever the truckload number of attempts you and he want to cite as “success.” lol

Actually Duckbill – blame James Dolan because I am forced to watch games on my computer instead of on Television and therefore I cannot post and watch at the same time. Usually though I find the in-game threads to be kind of overly emotional and distracting.

Boom Boom – shooting % is a terrible stat. It proves efficiency based on shots, but doesn’t account for TOI and strength of opponent during those shifts. I get why you would look at that, but that’s being a bit ridiculous.

About Stepan, he’s going to probably top out at maybe 65 points once he hits his stride in a few years. He can maybe have a 70+ point season since he does have the offensive instincts. He’s not a pure scorer though, more of a creative setup man. That’s why his first instinct is to pass most of the time unless he sees the lane to take the shot. But he can definitely chip in with goals, usually those that are considered “workman-like”.

You hit on an oxymoron there (no offense) in that scoring some goals on the PP WILL RAISE the PP shooting percentage. The fact that you don’t see a correlation between shooting percentage and the rate of scoring goals would embarrass the sixth graders up here in the mountains.

How the hell can anyone take the position that scoring a goal on a shot on the PP will not make a difference in the PP shooting percentage? Ahh, the new math for Hockey Dummies. Yeetchhhh!

Welcome to the cyber era in that every box score for every hockey game now contains TOI for even-strength and PP. So that while the statistics service for the NHL may not furnish us with a TOI breakdown relative to goals, we can do that ourselves for post categories.

For example, over the past four games the Rangers have one PP goal, a tying (or tie-breaking) goal scored by Cally, primarily assisted by Richards.

Not sure what you are getting at Boom Boom since thats such a small sample size. If you want to calculate actual efficiency that you can do trending off of, you have to look at at least 3-5 years of data.

Plus on the PP, efficiency for individual players isn’t as important as team efficiency, especially since you usually only have 2 units.

I have a bunch of stats on this from every year since the lockout, haven’t had time to update it in awhile, but I calculated player efficiency based on 16 different statistics and their correlation with team wins. Gave some very interesting results in regards to who had the best “team” based off of the data compiled.

I think shots themselves are a better indicator of value than the percentage. A 30 G scorer with 400 shots may have a poor %, but his team most likely has possession of the puck more when he’s on the ice and have greater scoring opportunities due to rebounds and such. You could even argue that there is more impact on the fatigue of the opposing goalie.

A friend of mine built an Access database for roto baseball that calculated z-scores for every player, weighing stats like SB’s more heavily than HR because they were harder to come by. A player that hit .280 over 600 ABs may be rated higher than someone with .340 over 150 AB’s because his production had a greater impact to his team.

Anyway, it’s a philosophical debate between whether you judge by feel and raw skill, or by metrics.

Not sure I agree with the SB>HR methodology, given that a HR is basically the single best outcome you can expect from a plate apperance, but yes typically a guy that hits .280 in 600 ABs is going to provide more value when you factor in RBI opportunities and slugging pct. associated with putting the ball in play and reaching safely. Unless the guy with 150 ABs has the same amount of plate appearances as the guy with 600 ABs and draws an insane amount of walks to give him an astronomically high on base percentage.

Sorry Boom Boom
1st…who are the Mets? I hate baseball, its so….soft and “un-jammy”.
2nd…I don’t drool and if I did, it wouldn’t be over percentages or investment markets, hedge funds, etc.
3rd…my hero(s) is/are Boyle, Prust and Rupp which if I had to rank would go Boyle>Prust>Rupp
4th…I’m a chiropractor, I have no clue when it comes to percentages, money markets, IRA’s, Roth IRA’s etc. I simply have no interest.
5th…I love hockey and watching you drool over Kreider

Some here are erroneously SEPARATING opportunities from goal scoring percentage. Ideally you would like to have a player averaging, say, eight shots on goal per night, to go with a 20 per cent shooting percentage. It is obviously better than half as many shots at the same percentage, or half the percentage with the same number of shots. So that if Ovie had a 20% shooting percentage to go with the same number of shots, you would have to like that even more than what you are getting, no?

You may be joking or poking fun, but resoundingly yes, my Fib stats for Ranger players at even-strength are quite revealing, at least to me. If I shared them here too often, mental hamburgers like you would poke fun at them, in lieu of understanding their relevance.

Boom Boom,
To be fair, I’m not sure shooting % is a valuable indicator, just like I don’t think BA is one in baseball. However, I do appreciate your argument and know where your coming from being in finance myself.

Also, I agree the HR is more valuable than SB in real baseball, but the SB is harder to come by in fantasy.

The math all makes sense, but you are ignoring the reality of hockey. You CAN’T shoot 8 times and shoot 20% on a consistent basis. Having the opportunities or the ability to consistently shoot 20% is really rare and probably out of any one player’s control. The ability to take 5 or 6 shots a game though? That, as a skilled player, you can make happen most nights. And the guys who have the most skill get the most goals from it as a result. That’s why Ovechkin’s huge number of shots turns into a ton of goals, why Gomez’s previously high number of shots ended up without.

CTB, that’s what I’m saying. Shooting percentage only matters if you have the goals to back it up. At the end of the day, give me the guy with the 5% shooting percentage with 50 goals vs the 50% shooter with 5.

But stats like Corsi relative QoC, cross referenced to PDO do reveal how well players are handling a specific role and how “at fault” or “responsible” they are for the scoring that takes place when they’re on the ice.

Nobody scores 50 goals on 5 % shooting, Doodie. Can you do a little better? 50 goals on 5 per cent shooting is 1000 SOG in an 82 game season, 12 shots on goal per game. Not your best analogy, in that a 5 per cent shooter is going to get about 8 minutes playing time, per game, killing penalties.

I’d rather analyze numbers and advanced stats than watch games. Hockey is one of those sports that is completely predictable and human emotion is not a factor. Thank goodness for advanced stats because I could never watch a boring hockey game.

Damn, Ovie could play for the “Knickerbockers” (you’re welcome, Steve) he is such a ball hog. Melo move over. So Ovie can’t pot 15% of those shots he takes? He will fade fast when he hits the downside brick wall. Overrated bum.

Something the NHL doesn’t track but should is the location of shots. When I was in college and had free time I tried to gather a bunch of that data just to do a test of the scoring likelihood when in certain areas of the ice. Also tried to break it down by what types of shots were taken in those areas.

No surprise, shots taken from the middle of the slot had by far the highest percentage of goals/shots out of any area of the ice. Most shots were taken from the left side boards and had the lowest chance of going in. Many of the shots in front of the net were tip-ins on shots from the point, and most shots from the point that weren’t deflected were slapshots.

That data is pretty obvious, but I was curious since I was trying to find out who the most effective player is offensively (hence the one who gets to the slot the most and releases wrist shots, and shoots at the highest percentage in that area). Obviously that was way too time consuming so I never got around to finishing it, especially once I started working.

Actually, Carmelo has improved this year, over his selfish debut in New York, last year.

This year he is averaging 2.27 points per missed shot – the NBA average for forwards is 1.61 points per missed shot, so that Carmelo is 41 per cent above par, there.

He is averaging .43 defensive rebounds per missed shot, the league average is .61, so he is 29 1/2 per cent below par, there.

And he is averaging .38 assists per missed shot, the NBA average for forwards is .225, so that he is 69 per cent above average in that category.

So you can say he is making a solid contribution in two of the three most important categories. The numbers per missed shot from the floor are my frame of reference, only. I try not to subscribe to conventional statistics or value judgments.

I have lots of Good Ideas about this topic (and many others). Other skill categories that are NOT taken seriously enough, IMHO:

– Ability to grow facial hair
– Ability to get teeth re-inserted without flinching and then go out and kick some butt
– Owns pets that do cool things (not to be confused with owns attractive pets, which is a totally stupid and gross category)
– Likeliness to be mistaken for a zombie (Rod the Bod *100%* )
– Nose picking skill

What about lines? I’d have to give high credit to the Czech Mates Nedved, Hlavac, and Dvorak (+333%) with honorable mention to the Predators’ (since they just played them) line of Erat, Orszagh, and Arkhipov (+300%).

ilb, I know you can’t stay up late so you missed this post last night:

Carp January 18th, 2012 at 1:43 am e

Torts told me he’s not putting Hagelin on the PP just to be smirky and sarcastic, and to piss off anybody who thinks he should put Hagelin on the PP, and anybody who thinks he hates Hagelin, plus to prove again that he’s an egomaniacal bully who will torpedo the team’s season, if necessary, to get his way and prove he’s right.

Interesting, how people try to denigrate the statistical branch of mathematics, and math, altogether. In fact, in school, all of us took TWO, meaningful courses for our future effectiveness in society, English, with its communications discipline, and math, the foundation of all business. And science can be included, though I wouldn’t put the biology and chemistry courses I took on a par with English vocabulary, literature, spelling and compositional skills, nor on a level even approaching math for future relevance in the lives of all of us.

The fluff courses many of us took included French or some language, gym class, music class, history, health, R.O.T.C., and other assorted waste of time courses.

So that, sure, my methods don’t resonate for others, while they do have relevance for me, but the math foundation, to go with developed english communications skills have served me better than all the other junk courses I took in school and college, put together.

I state the above because of a seemingly derisive poke at statistics, and math beyond that, by inference, above. How mis-guided that is, in the context of what is useful and important to one’s very survival in this world.

So share some of your – original – hockey stats with us, ilb. And I will thank you for that if they hit the mark. And if they don’t, I won’t take a cheap shot at you or the numbers, I will thank you for putting yourself on the line and posting them.

Boom Boom, I am not a statistician, but I do a fair amount of research that requires a complex statistical analysis. Most of it is done by a designated person, but I do know a thing or two about statistics. And a very superficial look at your data suggests that while it’s important to you, it doesn’t hold water from a statistical point of view….

Ratelle-Hadfield-Gilbert; Keon with Duff and Armstrong; Beliveau with Ferguson and Geoffrion; Pulford with Pappin and Stewart; Goyette with Marshall and Nevin, Sullivan with Bathgate and Prentice; Delvecchio with Howe and MacDonald; Hay with Hull and Balfour; Mikita with Mohns and Wharram; Kelly with Mahovlich and Nevin; Richard with Rousseau and Tremblay; Ingarfield with Fleming and Geoffrion; etc. Ahh, the good old days when life was special and those madhouse Garden hockey games were golden.

“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Madison Square Garden. The National Hockey League presents the New York Rangers and the Toronto Maple Leafs. Please note the following changes on your scorecard – lineup. For Toronto, scratch number 25, Marc Reaume. For New York, scratch, number 8, Louie Fontinato. The referee for tonight’s game: Red Storey. And now, please rise for the playing of our National Anthem.”

Of course you never know about prospects, but the track record in the last few years of the ranger organization has bee VERY IMPRESSIVE!

***

Anything after the 1st round I’d agree. But particularly at forward they’ve had a lot of swings and misses in the 1st round. The last drafted Ranger to score 30 in a season in a Rangers jersey, Prucha. The last drafted Ranger to score 30 in a season multiple times in a Rangers jersey, Amonte. The 1st round picks from 2003, 2004 (2), 2006 never got any meanginful playing time with the Rangers.

I’m not saying that Kreider is going to be a bust, I’m just as excited as everyone else is to see how he can play but let’s temper the talk that he’s going to make an immediate impact in the NHL. If he puts up a season like Stepan did last year that would be great, even a season like Dubinsky’s rookie year would be respectable. Very few guys step in during their rookie season and make a profound impact and they’re usually guys taken within the first 5 picks like Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin. A step down from those guys rookie years are players like Kane and Toews and then afterwards Stamkos, Tavares and Duchene.

Hail Friends!
I know this team keeps on winning and winning, but i just cant see them as an elite force come playoff time. They are extremely entertaining to watch, most nights. There are flashes of brilliance all over the ice… but i just dont see them dominating the teams that their record would indicate. My concern is that they never become more than what they are. The Penguins and Bruins of the league peak and excel come playoff time. If the NYR don’t add another dimention to their game as it stands, first or second round and out.

The Penguins and Bruins of the league peak and excel come playoff time. If the NYR don’t add another dimention to their game as it stands, first or second round and out.

***

The Penguins when healthy are dangerous. But there’s no indication that Crosby will even be back this season.

The Bruins blew a 3-0 series lead in 2010 and last year was the first time they made it past the 2nd round in about 20 years.

Are the Rangers an elite team? Tough to say, I’d lean towards no if they can’t kick their scoring back into gear and sustain it for longer stretches. Can they play like an elite team in short spurts, which is sometimes all you need to get on a run in the playoffs? Yes they can.

In addition to filtering, any permutation of columns can be shown in the results.
Next to each column above is the field index; combine the field indexes with “+” to specify the display columns (ie. “0+3+0+1″).

Carp not that you brought it up. Hags makes Boyle’s line look good, also added spark to Richie and Cally’s line, and really looked good with Gabby & Step. Why not make the power play look good, even if its the 2nd power play line.

Hags is a rookie and HE seems to be having a significant impact on the team. I saw Kreider play in 2010 in Boston. He is Hags in terms of skating ability with a better shot and better hands in a MUCH bigger body. why can’t he come in and have an impact. I am not saying he is going to come in and dominate; but what I am saying is that I would NOT mortgage the future to get a power forward who scores when I think we have one waiting in the wings… Just my humble opinion….